The Answer: Because they know it's *not real*

By Jeff Emanuel Posted in | | | | Comments (57) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

The Question:

Why is it that the anti-theist Left wing goes nuts shrieking "Church and State" and spouting accusations of "[breaking] with longstanding precedent" by "unveil[ing] a presidential campaign ad infused with deeply religious tones" when they look hard enough, with enough prejudice, at the image below to find a phantom religious symbol in it...

...yet there's nary a peep from those same anti-religion Lefties when Barack Obama does this:

Evangelical Christians, and other religious individuals who occasionally feel drawn in by Barack Obama's rapidly-changing message, should keep that question, and the answer, in mind when considering who they want to support -- and why -- this election season.

The anti-religious Left allows Obama and other Democrats to use the imagery and the language of the Church, to attend and be active in churches for two decades-plus, and to speak to people of faith in what they assume is "their" language without argument or protestation (when a fraction of that level of "religious" activity would earn a Republican the title of "theocrat") because the Left knows Obama, et al are simply doing those things out of a need to appeal to the bitter religion-clingers, not because they actually believe or mean them in any way.

Christians should simply look at the Left's reaction to Barack Obama or any other Democrat politician's religious statements and claims of faith to gauge just how real those claims are. Just refer to the above exhibit for evidence of how serious, and how authentic, Barack Obama's are.


« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | Obama Will Sell AnythingComments (29) »
The Answer: Because they know it's *not real* 57 Comments (0 topical, 57 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

That's not a cross behind Obama, it's a bookshelf...a bookshelf.

------------------------------------------
This signature left intentionally blank

Good one.

...it should read:

HOPE to CHANGE your FAITH

It's part of his evolving party platform to change those who are bitterly clinging to their religion and give them a faith in the true almighty . . . intrusive government.

--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox

of religion but your kidding yourself if you don't think Huckabee's campaign intentionally include the cross symbol in their ad; not that it matters that they did.

"The time for honoring yourself will soon be at an end."
- Maximus

Nice to see you back, by the way. Seems like it's been a while.

I still check the site regularly and always read your articles but I don't have the time to post much.

"The time for honoring yourself will soon be at an end."
- Maximus

Barry Goldwater had this to say about religion, and I must editorialize that Conservatives while preaching religious values at home should never do it in government.

However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
-Barry M. Goldwater

for two reasons:
1. People have the right to support whatever candidate they choose for any reason they choose. If those religious leaders that Goldwater was discussing believed that he didn't deserve their support, that is their business entirely and they had every right to campaign against him. Was he so arrogant that he thought that he deserved all their votes, even if they disagreed?

2. Pastors preach, as do priests, rabbis, etc. Part of their job is to explain morality. If Goldwater didn't understand this, he was too ignorant to hold office at the time he made this statement. No one was forcing him to listen or follow what those preachers were saying.

Whether the religious leaders were right or wrong isn't relevant here. His lack of understanding is pretty pathetic.

Goldwater was very clear. He said he personally believed the rise of the religious right as a power in the Republican world was ominous. That was his opinion. He also said he did not like those who used God to defend their positions were particularly conservative, again that was his opinion.

Your editorial calling Barry Goldwater ignorant, and unfit to serve, will not go over well with even the most ardent social cons here I believe. and guess what, Goldwater was right in my opinion. Our Founders were very unlike the modern religious right in philosophy, and most mainstream churches do not preach politics.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

I don't personally care what Goldwater thought about the subject - his opinions are his own and he is welcome to them. I don't even care if he was right or wrong. While I have my own thoughts, you'll notice that I never said he was wrong. I said that he lacked understanding about some very important points.

You did not address the core of my complaints. He seems to believe that he deserved people's votes even if they believe he is wrong. He also said that he was tired of political preachers saying that he or others weren't moral for various reasons. Too bad - that is part of what they do. I wouldn't expect a Hindu priest to say that I was moral, either, if I fall short of what they believe.

who failed to read it carefully. I doubt Goldwater said he deserved votes from people who did not agree with him. Goldwater had his problems with the Religious Right because he found their influence in the Republican party to be too powerfull, when in many ways, they were not conservative at all. They did not reject government interferrence, they just wanted a different outcome than the leftists.

You might not agree with Goldwater, but your aspersions are off base sir.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

His condemnation of Barry was conditional. Barry said, "Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?" If Barry really did not understand that preachers preach; that it is their job to impress upon sinners their "moral beliefs," then he really was too ignorant to hold office. But, of course, he knew better. He flew off the handle and reacted to moralists the way he never would to other political lobbyists. He would expect a union lobbyist to promote labor's position "100% of the time." And a Chamber rep to promote business "100% of the time." He should have expected a preacher to encourage him to be "moral" "100% of the time."

Had he asked my opinion, I would have encouraged him, for the sake of himself and the country, to hew closer to the advice of the moralists than to the competing voices.

Doc...I revere Goldwater and admire many things about him...but it's pretty hard to get past the ignorance of that statement. He was being ignorant and just as stridently hateful as those he was railing against


http://meandmyilk.blogtownhall.com/

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.--Ronald Wilson Reagan

Russell Kirk and William F Buckley were the founders of modern conservatism. Goldwater, Friedman, et al, were what you might call OG's, but the center of gravity was those two.

Impeach the 5 usurpers

considered the founders of the Libertarian branch of modern conservatism, while Kristol and Podhoretz are the founders of the neoconservative branch. Likewise Falwell and Robertson are the co founders of the religious conservative branch.

Put them all together and it's like herding cats. Which is what made Buckley indispensable.

Now we will just have to get along without these men.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

I've always viewed Robertson and Falwell to be a bit liberal.

Yes, they push Republican candidates, but they have no problem getting the government to try and make people lead moral lives.

I think they choose republicans because of moral issues, but never analyze the political consequences of their actions.

*shrugs*

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.85

You can't be serious!

I'm hearing how SoCons like me have no problem using the Government to force our moral views on society more and more when it's just not true by and large. It doesn't fit with Falwell and Robertson either. If you followed their teachings you'd know Falwell in particular that Falwell was a federalist in the traditional sense. Are there issues where they went against federalist principles? You bet...But nor by choice. DoMA is one instance and I would argue they were given no choice but to take an anti federalist stance because it has been the policy of our ideological enemies to push the courts and governments into places where they didn't belong.

I point to DoMA because it's one of those uncomfortable issues for me because the nature of the attack on traditional marriage demand a response and defense from the central government because what Falwell predicted is upon us...you now have gay marriage recognized in Mass and CA. I could care less if that were where this would be left...but it won't...The next push is going to be to have marriages from those locations recognized nation wide in every single state in every single county in every single city across the country.

That's what the left does...the pick issues where they will not only advance their agenda but at the same time they force us to take positions that we would normally oppose in order to protect ourselves. It's how they always advance their agenda because by forcing such choices on us. If they lose on their stated objective...ie getting Gay Marriage approved across the nation...they still win because they've forced us to take an anti Federalist position to defend ourselves...which will be used to beat us about the head the next time they want to do something that is anti federalist.

What irks me about this is that the Republicans have been beaten for nearly 60 years now with the same tactic...and we have yet to figure out a way to either get around these Cornelian dilemmas or turn the tables on the Dems in order to use this same tactic for republican benefit!


http://meandmyilk.blogtownhall.com/

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.--Ronald Wilson Reagan

I meant to add that SoCons have been painted with a broad brush because of Bush's Faith Based initiatives which I believe a vast majority of SoCons opposed. Most of us are smart enough to know that by accepting money from the Federal Government...Churches and Religious organizations will eventually be forced to accept Federal Regulation of their Churches and Organizations...We're being unjustifiably hung with the noose reserved for those we disagree with on this issue!


http://meandmyilk.blogtownhall.com/

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.--Ronald Wilson Reagan

the 80s and 90s version. Feel free to correct my assumption if I am wrong, but the impression that I have always gotten from his statements was that he seemed to be actively opposed to a role for religion in the public square.

That is the problem with most of the libertarians I have encountered - they have had an active dislike of Christianity, not just disagreements with it, to the point where almost anything a Christian said was discounted for that reason alone. Morality meant nothing to them, and they wanted only freedom from religion instead of freedom of religion. Maybe I have encountered the dregs of libertarianism, I don't know. If it weren't for this, I would have been tempted by the LP.

they frighten me. But most libertarians who are also right leaning, Like myself and Bird and a few others here. We do not dislike Christians, in fact I am one. What we do dislike is the belief that so many Christians have that they can do good for society by using the government to legislate vices.

The bible calls upon us to be wise as serpents and harmless as Owls, but I see the opposite happen too many times.

This is especially true in local politics. We get these demagogues who make political hay out of closing down a nudie bar or an adult bookstore. I don't view that as promoting values since it will only drive the activities elsewhere, or cause unintended consequences. Instead, what I see is the government having the raw power to harass business. And who gave them that power?

It always comes back to haunt you.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

The problem with that thinking is that you equate our motives and what we do on a local level with what we seek at the national level...

As a Federalist...I believe the Central Government...or the Federal Government if you will are to be restricted in it's size and scope having as little impact on local society as a whole to what the Constitution limits them to. But I also believe that citizens and local governments should be allowed to enforce local standards of morality and conduct. If Las Vegas, or Atlantic City want to allow Gambling and prostitution...then let them have it...but if a majority of the citizens of San Antonio want to reject those type business they should be allowed to.


http://meandmyilk.blogtownhall.com/

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.--Ronald Wilson Reagan

Bottom line is this...If you don't agree with what SoCons want to do on a local level then fight us there...but the current push by Rockefeller and libertarian Republicans to shut SoCons out makes no sense if the Party wants to win elections.


http://meandmyilk.blogtownhall.com/

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.--Ronald Wilson Reagan

majority rule is not freedom, it is not liberty. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Libertry is the right of the lamb to not be on the menu.

States and localities can be just as draconian as any federal government. Ask Rush Limbaugh what he thinks of the local guys that went after him? Ask the Duke players what they think about their local prosecutor? Ask Tom Delay what he thinks of the local judiciary that had him thrown from Congresss with no conviction?

I see states banning gambling, then telling us it is ok to gamble in state lotteries where your odds are a joke and the state takes all the cash. This has nothing to do with localities voting. This has to do with politicians who want to control your personal lives and gain control of as much cash as they can. Millions of Americans break the law when they gamble online, make a bet on the Super Bowl, or even fill in a NCAA tourney bracket. Is this right? Should adults have the right to do what they want with their own money, or should some state bureaucrat make criminals of them?

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Good points all...and I don't think we're that far off from one another Doc...Local governments can over reach...and many of the laws and inconsistencies you point to as proofs were foisted on the majority over the opposition of the majority of people in the area including SoCons...My point and problem is when what SoCons do and our stated goals on the local level are extrapolated to mean that we want the Federal Government to do the same.

If you want unfettered and legal gambling where you live either work to get your local government to allow it or go to Vegas...but at least allow me and other SoCons the opportunity To oppose you and set our own community standards. But because I want my little corner of San Antonio to not have a strip joint or I don't want a liqueur store or porn shop across the street from my kid's grade school doesn't mean I want the FBI to kick your door in for playing a game of poker. It's an unfair characterization that I know you're not making and I think I know you well enough to know you wouldn't make that characterization...but my point above is that too many libertarians make it!

I'm a libertarian more than a SoCon but as I've written about extensively on RS...I believe as did the founders that one will die without the other. Libertarianism by it's self will invite totalitarianism because without a moral order to control men's passions, society will fall apart and the government always steps in to fill the void.


http://meandmyilk.blogtownhall.com/

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.--Ronald Wilson Reagan

the reason I went off on gambling is because some socons use it for moral reasons and some socons are used for moral reasons. I see nothing moral or logicical in state gambling laws. We are not just talking Vegas here, most states allow some form of gambling, but most ban the type where they state does not get a huge cut. See, it is sold to do gooders for moral reasons, but the laws are their for taxation and control reasons.

Also, I disagreee with your last statement about libertarianism leading to totaltarianism. Libertarianism DOES have a moral core, in libertarianism is is a crime to infringe on the freedom of others. YOu can not attack them, steal their land, take away their rights, or treat them unfairly. Libertarianism is the most consistently moral political philosophy in my opinion. And I say that not with Rand in my mind, but the Constitution and the Founders.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

SoCons are poorly served b y some on our ranks who can't see what's wrong with using the government to do what the Bible has plainly told us to do ourselves...Frankly it's a pain in the a** trying to explain the difference between doing unto others as you would have them do unto you and having the government take from someone else to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

As for my statement...I didn't mean to say Libertarians aren't moral...I am one by and large and consider myself moral...What I'm saying though is that if you have absolute liberty without some kind of morality to govern mens passions you will eventually have anarchy and chaos...it's the anarchy that leads to the tyranny I mentioned...besides...I note that you laid out a moral principles that underpin your libertarianism...which pretty much proves what I said...doesn't it?


http://meandmyilk.blogtownhall.com/

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.--Ronald Wilson Reagan

most small l libetarians vote Republican. The Libertarian Party is a mess, made up of many people with many different issues. Back to small l libertarians. Again, as libertarian conservative, as a Goldwater Reagan conservative, I believe libertarian conservatism is the foundation of the modern Republican party.

I have never heard of libertarians opposing Christianity. I would guess most libertarian conservatives are Christians, I know I am, and I know Barry Goldwater was a Christian, and Friedman was Jewish. I guess I don't know why you would think libertarians oppose religion.

Libertarians say "you can do what you want, as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others". For example, a social con might say "don't do marijuana because it is a sin", while a libertarian would say "feel free to do marijuana, but if you get high and hurt me or others, you will have to pay".

It is wrong to imply libertarians do not have morals. In fact, I think libertarianism is the MOST moral position. To me, morality is doing the right thing when you have the option of doing the wrong thing. Threatening a "moral" society of at the point of a gun is not moral, and makes no one moral, just threatened.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

the axiom that You Own your self. Therefore only you can have dominion on your self or responsibility for yourself.

I never push things as far as Ayn Rand, that is a moral and political dead end. But certainly if you cannot have responsibility for your own self then what good are you? You are certainly unworthy of participating in the government.

That is the crux of left wing politics, they don't think you are competent to run your own life.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

as possible. I actually consider myself a libertarian-leaning conservative, so I can sympathize, but you have to actually read what I said. Most libertarians that I have come in contact with were exactly how I described them, and I will not apologize for telling the truth. If you want to argue with me about the people I have seen or corresponded with in some way, feel free but you probably won't get very far, heh.

As I said, I may just have come in contact with the dregs of the libertarians, I don't know, and they probably weren't right-leaning libertarians. The point is - they were my first contact with libertarianism outside of a book, and they left a pretty bad taste in my mouth for self-described hard-core libertarians.

Concerning rest of what you said, we're more or less on the same page. There is a place for federalism, though.

A winning Republican Strategy:

1)Send all Evangelical voters and former Southern Democrats back to the Democrats.

2) Wait for the throngs of wildly enthusiastic committed economically conservative, rabidly pro-choice voters to show up.

Adam's Blog

But why do I get the feeling that no one is standing behind me?

Have you added to the population of the McCain 2008 minicity yet today?

I drive a car powered by hydrogen - C8H18 to be exact.

I thought is said pro-life.

Now it looks as though there is no one in the #2 category.

Have you added to the population of the McCain 2008 minicity yet today?

I drive a car powered by hydrogen - C8H18 to be exact.

Yes, let's get rid of the Christians!

The Republican Party will REALLY have vast numbers when it is just a bunch of Atheists who believe in low taxes!

That's a HUGE segment of society!

...

and some of you are the same ones who tell me that the Republican Party has to remain "big tent" for the sake of winning elections...

Would you have also required that our Founding Fathers strip out all religious references in our founding documents, so as to not offend your anti-evangelical ears?

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.85

It never fails to amaze me how nobody can make the connection that the participation of Conservative Christians in the electoral process is directly proportional to the encroachment of the Federal Government, the SCOTUS and the ACLU in all matters that affect the faith, values, freedom of association, speech and expression. If the government would leave us all alone, we'd go back to our churches and those of you that can't stand to see us exorcise the same rights you have to participate in the electoral process wouldn't be bothered by us any more. The Democrats biggest defeats in 1994 and 2004 came after they decided they were going to demonize Conservative Christians.

The ugly thing now is that both the Democrats are seeking out Conservative Christians and the Republican party is busy either ignoring or out right purge us this year...It'll be interesting to see how the extreme libertarians and the squishy Rockefeller wing react when the chickens come home to roost in November.

The double standard of the media as described in the OP will only feed into the perceptions that the Republican Party holds people guided by religious principle in contempt while the Dummycrats seem to be seeking us out!


http://meandmyilk.blogtownhall.com/

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.--Ronald Wilson Reagan

I think we need to seperate the two types of conservative.

There is the Conservative Christian that, like me, is a Christian and Politically Conservative.

There is also the conservative Christian. These are the ones with very conservative morals (which I also share in), but can be easily swayed to embrace liberalism and a big government as a way to enforce that morality on others.

You will never find me voting for a Democrat unless that Democrat is to the right of the Republican (like, say, zell miller)

However, down the road from me is a church where they are very morally strict, but talk about Israel as an oppressor of the Palestinians and you regularly saw "Vote Kerry!" stickers on people's cars.

When the Republicans want to explain away a loss, they blame the conservative (i.e. liberal) christians.

When the Democrats want to explain away a loss, they blame Conservative Christians.

When people want to trash Christians, they tend to be talking about the liberal kind, and apply it to all. Especially if the term "Bible beater" is used.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.85

Huckabee is the second type you talked about. He scares me.

I used to belong to an Evangelical Church in the 1980's and was real active in Republican politics.

It was then that I began to notice that many of my fellow Christians, while good, and basically conservative people had only a superficial understanding of basic issues, and tended to see everything in Black and White.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a moral relativist, but on the everyday issues that face us you do more harm than good is you either remain ignorant, trust blindly in leaders and teachers, or try to equate everything with some sort of moral teaching when in fact some things are just neutral. They are not matters of right and wrong, only does it work, or does it not.

What I am trying to say is that I welcome all religious people who want to participate, but I warn of trying to make everything some sort of moral test. And I also warn of following religious leaders and not learning for yourself.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Eh, I see Huckabee as someone who just didn't stand up to the liberals when he needed to.

Anything past that is irrelevant to me. If a Republican can't stand up to the liberals, I don't want to waste my time with them.

You are wholly correct on the part about people not learning for themselves. People expect preachers to be their surrogate learned men, but also expect them to say whatever the people want to hear.

People want to be filled spiritually and have a sense of purpose, but it is a rare breed that wants to seek growth internally, rather than the warm fuzzy "I just feel myself growing as a christian and feel God's call in my life to sell off everything I have and just help people in africa." Eh. Maybe, but I think you're just wanting to have a change in life and you've romanticized missionary work in Africa.

I don't have a problem with religious leaders making political statements. The actions of government deal in morality daily.

I don't have a problem with a preacher saing "I feel called to tell you to vote democrat."

I'll laugh at him, but I'm not going to support any legislation making that illegal.

If a preacher wants to run for public office, that's fine.

If they're a liberal, I won't vote for them. If they're a conservative, I will.

If they're a liberal and say "I'm going to make sure that we make consensual sex illegal if it is out of wedlock, because it is wrong!" I won't vote for them, even though he and I would agree on the morality of sex out of wedlock.

but, I'm a conservative. I believe that teaching someone to avoid sin is MUCH better than trying to legislate it away.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.85


http://meandmyilk.blogtownhall.com/

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.--Ronald Wilson Reagan

5 by tcgeol

Very solid post.

I do think that the "conservative Christians" that you discuss are fairly uncommon, though. I don't know of many churches who honestly are morally strict that are like you describe, although they do exist. Generally speaking, it seems a church with a liberal political stance - even if its not official - usually has a liberal theology as well. Definitely, it is true of most of the mainline churches who want government to be involved in social work, etc, but I wouldn't call those "conservative morals".

There is a middle ground that I think a large majority of Christians fit. They are not for a large government and would be on our side most of the time; but at the same time, they have a hard time seeing that just because something is Biblically wrong or right, doesn't mean that the federal government should interfere to their liking. I have arguments with my friends about this. They want the government to do certain things, and I have to stop them and ask if the federal government is Constitutionally permitted to do those things. Its just something that they don't think about - which makes them no different than 99% of Americans in general.

I grew up with many.

They would call for people to support Republicans, mostly due to Republicans generally being Pro-Life.

However, they would support a whole host of very 'big government' bills because they believed that the government had a duty to be charitable (which is how they defended their support of welfare) or to educate (which is how they supported the "Goals 2000" program that Minnesota tried). etc.

They were 1 issue republicans. Very liberal on everything, but pro-life, so they voted Republican. I'd even hear them rant about how evil and wrong the war in iraq is on about how Bush lied..... but they still voted for him in 2004 because Kerry was pro-choice.

They didn't mind a big intrustive government as long as their personal moral ethic was guiding it.

Of course, it was easy to find their personal vices as they wouldn't want government to interfere in gambling, or alcohol, or they wanted prostitution legal or less restrictions on strip clubs, etc.

but they wanted big government to make sure the rest is kept in check.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.85

conservative if they were for big government.

Well, that's kind of what I said in the beginning...

they aren't conservatives politically, even though they are morally.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.85

That's where So Called Conservatives have betrayed their mission.

Their mission isn't just to win elections...which far to many work for and do nothing else...it's not just to affect Conservative change...It's to educate the difference between Conservative Government...and using government to achieve conservative ends...I would argue there is nothing conservative about the latter...since using government to achieve is anti conservative!


http://meandmyilk.blogtownhall.com/

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.--Ronald Wilson Reagan

For the same reason that the economy will look damn fine the day after the election (if Obama wins) and we'll begin hearing about remarkable successes in Iraq.

We've gone far beyond the two standards that usually apply to Democrats and Republicans here. When it comes to Obama, we're entering a whole new realm of evaluative logic.

Or to put it another way: how dare you begrudge the savior himself his appearance at the pulpit?

Liberals seem more comfortable with churches that look for most sins (real or imagined) outside of themselves, not inside (see Jeremiah Wright.) "If I'm not succeeding, some evil person is out there holding me back." But conservatives (traditionalists) seem more comfortable, or accepting, of churches that look for the flaws, the sins, within oneself. "God's blessings are all around me. If I'm not succeeding, what am I doing wrong?" Liberals (and their churches) value equality more than they value the dignity of winning or losing. Conservatives (and their churches) value the dignity of winning or losing more than they value equality. You can't have both dignity and equality.

Have you added to the population of the McCain 2008 minicity yet today?

I drive a car powered by hydrogen - C8H18 to be exact.

The church I grew up in was mostly liberal democrats.

Catholic. East Coast.

I think you are wrong about the Catholic Church.

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,

controversy. He explicitly said to remember that Christ is the reason for the season... it's not like it was a "Happy Holidays" ad with the cross hidden in there.

___________________________________
Just like PayPal, except it's free and a $25 bonus to sign up!

Obama's recent comments about his enthusiasm for faith based government programs have met with silence from his fans.
'Because they know it's not real' is a fine explanation for this puzzling situation. It could also be that they are in shock and too embarrassed to admit that they have been betrayed. Like I said before Democrat men are the world's greatest betrayers.

This betrayal however pales in comparison to Obama's other statements about the Iraq War in which he completely backed away from immediate troop withdrawal and said he wanted to discuss the situation with commanders in the field before deciding anything. Wow. You people who gave so generously to help elect a President who would embrace defeat in Iraq really got screwed, it appears.

Dakgeo is right. It's Occam's razer, the simpliest solution is probably the right one. IT'S ALL A LIE SO THE LEFT DOES NOT CARE!!

I think we all know the difference. The left knows that Obama is simply pandering, hell they've seen what goes on in his church and for the most part the left agrees with the likes of Rev Wright. Huckabee isn't pandering, he's real. Thats the issue the left has.

Obama would not allow an infant born alive during an abortion to be called human. He continues to support fetal murder

Obama supports the SCOTUS justices that have constantly attacked religion

Obama sits in a "church" for 20 years where his mentor, marrying officiator and baptizer of his children spews anti American, racist hatred; then claims he had no idea this is what Wright was doing?
To Obama, religion is another building block in his wall of fallacy. Anyone believing otherwise has been grotesquely led astray

"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report

until either the election is over, or we see a single story in mainstream press that acknowledges the hypocrisy.

Of course, we know which one will happen first.

Have you added to the population of the McCain 2008 minicity yet today?

I drive a car powered by hydrogen - C8H18 to be exact.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service